Are living things, reproducing "after their kind", not to be considered as science?
Actually, it's part of evolutionary biology, and *is* taught in science class. However, it is also taught that over time the "kinds" themselves can change, can bifurcate (and re-bifurcate ad infinitum), can go extinct, and so on, because that's what the evidence overwhelmingly indicates.
Why did you say in your first answer that the "after its kind" method of reproduction has proven to be untrue, but in your second answer you say that it IS taught in school.
By "bifurcate" do you mean evolve into an entirely new species?
The first was in reference to "created after its kind" (not reproduction), and the second was in reference to "reproducing after its kind".
I took the first to mean "each kind separately created" -- if you meant something else, just let me know.
By "bifurcate" do you mean evolve into an entirely new species?
Pretty much, yeah. "Bifurcate" means "fork", basically, as in to split into two and to head down two separate paths.
Usually an entire species won't evolve into a new species -- instead the more common event is that a "splinter" group will separate and evolve off in another direction while the "parent" group remains relatively the same or evolves off in a different direction.
Of course, then each of the two resulting species can split again, etc. This is how we've ended up with the millions of different species living today, far fewer species near the beginning, and how the thousands of different mammal species all descended from a common "first" ancestral mammal species, and so on.